BigBlue02

March 1st, 2016 at 10:41 PM ^

You mean other than having a better record from last year to this year as everyone gets a year older, as well as pretty much every player getting better from last year to this year? Yeah, no improvement at all. And we have a chance to win 11 B10 games. I guarantee you and most the board didn't think that was possible after getting beaten badly by Xavier and SMU. So yes, according to most everyone who thought 11 B10 wins wasn't possible, the team progressed this year

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: -1003

SpaceDad

March 1st, 2016 at 10:38 PM ^

Coaching. It is paramount in college sports. To be a great program you must have a great coach. Michigan has a great coach now.
 
I like that you want Michigan to be a Top 15 basketball program, where it belongs. I like when you argue against those who who believe that Michigan can’t sustain success in basketball. I like when you criticize those who believe a program must cheat to win. Even some of your criticisms of Beilein are logical. A lot of the points you make are valid and well stated.
 
Normally I would agree that missing the tournament for the fourth time in nine years should not be acceptable at Michigan. But this is different. You can’t fault a coach for missing the tournament in two of his first three seasons at a program that hadn’t been there in the previous 10.
 
The past two seasons have been disappointing, but there is a legitimate argument that Michigan would be looking at its sixth straight tournament appearance (and seventh in eight years) if not for some terrible bad luck.

Joined: 05/15/2015

MGoPoints: 494

chatster

March 2nd, 2016 at 2:36 AM ^

I like John Beilein and think that he has done some good things for Michigan men’s basketball during his tenure as head coach.  I don’t know how you determine that he’s a “great coach.”
 
Maybe if you consider his having one of the top thirteen percent (13%) winning percentages for active men’s Division One coaches, or his being tied for 223rd on the list of all-time winning percentages for men’s Division One coaches, you could consider him to be a “great coach.”
 
Among the all-time top 250 winning percentages for men’s college basketball coaches, John Beilein is tied for 223rd on the list. (Steve Fisher, who coached Michigan to a national championship in 1989, is tied for 120th on the list.) LINK.
 
Comparing him to some of his Big Ten contemporaries by some other measurements, like NCAA Tournament appearances and regular season championships, Beilein might not be considered more than just a “very good coach.”
 
In 34 seasons as an NCAA college head coach, Beilein has taken his teams to the NCAA Tournament just ten times (five with Michigan, twice with West Virginia and once each with Canisius, Richmond and Division II LeMoyne.)  Only four times has a Beilein-coached team made it to the Sweet Sixteen and beyond in the NCAA Tournament. In his six appearances in the NIT, Beilein took his team to the final four of that tournament only twice and won it with West Virginia, the year he became Michigan’s head coach. His teams have won or tied for regular season conference championships only six times.
 
Beilein’s current winning percentage at Michigan (.608) is lower than it was at LeMoyne (.634), Richmond (.654) and West Virginia (.634.)  He’s 63 years old, two years older than Tom Izzo who, in 21 seasons as head coach at Michigan State, has taken his last 19 teams (including his current team) to the NCAA Tournament, with one championship and 13 trips to the Sweet Sixteen and beyond, including seven trips to the Final Four.
 
Although Beilein’s got a better winning percentage than Indiana’s Tom Crean who just won the Big Ten's regular season championship with a team that has been missing one of its top players and its second leading scorer (James Blackmon) for most of the past two months due to a knee injury, Beilein’s almost 13 years older than Crean, and Crean has taken nine teams to the NCAA Tournament in 17 seasons as a head coach.
 
Beilein’s about 14 years older than Thad Matta who has taken 13 teams to the NCAA Tournament in 16 seasons as a head coach; but he could make it 14 in 16 seasons if Ohio State somehow squeezes into the tournament this year. In one of those seasons, Ohio State was ineligible, but finished 20-12 and 8-8 in the Big Ten, and the other time he missed before this season, his Ohio State team won the NIT. He has taken his teams to the Sweet Sixteen and beyond six times.

Joined: 09/14/2010

MGoPoints: 26987

SpaceDad

March 3rd, 2016 at 1:33 AM ^

Point taken. Great should be reserved for Hall of Fame coaches, and Beilein would probably have to take Michigan to a couple more Final Fours to be considered.
 
In my opinion the only thing keeping him from greatness now is the nine years he coached at Le Moyne (Div. II), and the 10 years at Canisius and Richmond, programs where trips to the NCAA Tournament are more rare than leap years.
 
Though Beilein is older than his contemporaries in the Big Ten, he has only coached 14 years at power conference schools — five at West Virginia and nine at Michigan. 
 
In those 14 seasons, he has taken his teams to the NCAA Tournament seven times (eight if he makes it this season). This is not a great number, but other factors must be taken into consideration. For example, in both cases he took over struggling programs that had endured tournament droughts of six years at West Virginia and nine years at Michigan.
 
Beilein’s record does not compare well to those of Tom Izzo, John Calipari or even Thad Matta. But I think he is better than his record and tournament appearances show, and I would certainly take him over Tom Crean. Also, Coach B is a class act, who refuses to complain about injuries and bad breaks.

Joined: 05/15/2015

MGoPoints: 494

JCV16

March 1st, 2016 at 4:59 PM ^

That's what we'd be be with iowa win, penn state win, indiana loss.

Anything's possible but I doubt committee leave us out with that. 

Joined: 06/29/2011

MGoPoints: -96953

LSAClassOf2000

March 1st, 2016 at 4:59 PM ^

That, in Lunardi's opinion, is still short. According to him, Michigan needs not only two more wins, but two more good wins — wins coming against teams in the tournament field.

I think some of this depends on what happens to the teams in the conference around Michigan too. Beat Iowa - especially in an off week for a few others - and win once in the BTT and the probability is pretty high that they are in, I think. Two wins in the tournament plus beating Iowa and you're more or less guaranteed a spot over any auto-bids, however - merely two more wins and you can still get bounced depending on what is happening in other conferences, I would say.

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130666

Bosch

March 1st, 2016 at 5:02 PM ^

If Michigan can beat Iowa and win the first game of the BTT, I'd be surprised if they got left out. No losses to bad teams and 4 victories over top 25 teams.

Joined: 04/03/2009

MGoPoints: 8194

TheDirtyD

March 1st, 2016 at 5:18 PM ^

It's cool we had a runner up and an elite 8 apperance, in fact I'm shocked that with those accolades the NCAA hasn't just handed us a title.. We should build a stadium after J.B.

Joined: 07/18/2009

MGoPoints: 17916

Mr. Yost

March 1st, 2016 at 5:17 PM ^

IMO we have to win 2 more games. Does matter how they come, either Iowa and 1 in the tournament or 2 in the tournament...but we need 2 wins.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

jcouz

March 1st, 2016 at 5:18 PM ^

Michigan has to beat Iowa, Penn St, and Indiana or else they are out. I took it as that is what they need for a guaranteed lock without taking in to account what other bubble teams or crazy conference tournament results occur. I think that any combination of 2 wins at this point would likely end up being enough. Maybe not a guarantee but highly likely.

Joined: 07/08/2011

MGoPoints: 3246

chatster

March 2nd, 2016 at 11:33 AM ^

For most schools that aspire to basketball success, especially those like Michigan that are on the "NCAA Bubble" this year, it's more likely that they'd be embarrassed to be in the NIT.
 
Off the top of your head, could you name the school that won the 2015 post-season NIT?  Did you watch Johnny Dawkins’ Stanford team beat Miami of Florida in that NIT championship game 66-64 for Stanford’s second NIT championship in four seasons?  Do you remember seeing any “One Shining Moment” montage that showed the highlights of that tournament?
 
Even the teams that get to play in the NCAA Tournament’s “First Four” games in Dayton have a small chance of being in the sports headlines for at least one night. How many people will be watching an opening round NIT game that doesn't involve the team they root for?
 
Sure, playing in the NIT might give this senior-less Michigan team a few more practice sessions and maybe a few more games – and maybe a chance to end the season on a high note; but there’s no guarantee that success in the NIT will be beneficial the following season. Stanford’s currently 15-12 (8-8 in the Pac 12), and like Michigan, they’ve got no “bad losses.”  But ten of their losses were against teams in the top 30 of the RPI, they’re 7-12 against the top 100, and they’ve only played three games against teams ranked above 200 in the RPI, according to CBS Sports. LINK

Joined: 09/14/2010

MGoPoints: 26987

B-Nut-GoBlue

March 1st, 2016 at 5:28 PM ^

Joe smokin' crack.

We beat Iowa we're in.

All of you stating that it doesn't matter if we get in anyway as we'll be an early out....yes it does.  It feels SO much better to begin an already amazing weekend of sports to have your team in said weekend's matchups, even if it's just one game.

Joined: 09/30/2011

MGoPoints: 43728

Roland Deschain

March 1st, 2016 at 5:44 PM ^

Regarding perceptions of JB, it would be interesting to take a cross-section of UM fans who "survived" the Fab Five / 99-08 years / wandering the desert and compare that assessment against people who started following UM (and - specifically - basketball) since after 2008.

For me personally, I fall into the latter category of fans. I attended a blue-blood basketball program for undergrad and went to UM for grad school in 2009. I have been fortunate to witness several amazing seasons under JB, but also some serious head scratchers. 

I completely appreciate the foundation JB has laid over the past several years. He's taken UM basketball out of the dark ages. Having said that, it's difficult for me to shed my "blue-blood" expectations for basketball programs, particularly when I believe UM should be a conference powerhouse and major player on the national stage. 

At my undergrad, JB would likely be shown the door after this year, given his performance the past two seasons (and the up-and-down nature of his overall trackrecord at UM as well as his recruiting). Nevertheless, I'm probably a bit more patient than the average alum...

If UM does not make the tourney this year, I don't think JB should be canned; however, I do believe he should be on the hot seat next years...and - if the team fails to make the tourney again next year - I think it'll be time for him to go. 

Joined: 07/17/2015

MGoPoints: 564

Richard75

March 1st, 2016 at 6:15 PM ^

Good post. Totally agree that one's assessment likely depends on when one's fanmanship began.

There's also a bit of revisionist history going on. JB didn't take U-M out of the dark ages. He ended the tourney drought, which was indeed a huge albatross, but when JB arrived, U-M was a middle-of-the-pack program that went to the NIT. The sanctions ended his first season; Ellerbe was long gone. This wasn't a 10-22 program when Beilein arrived; it only played out that way because his hiring amounted to a complete teardown. (Which is fine.)

As for assessing JB: Most U-M fans would've signed up for 2 B1G titles in 9 years, given that we'd won zero since '86. But that distorts the picture. We were relevant more often then than we are now, despite the lack of banners.

And: If we'd known that we'd clearly still be the No. 2 program in the state nine years into this regime, absolutely no one would've been cool with that.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/23/2008

MGoPoints: 5290

bronxblue

March 1st, 2016 at 11:18 PM ^

I agree somewhat, though as long as Izzo is at MSU I never expected UM to supersede them.  He's just an elite college coach; I despise his antics and think he's a bit of a scumbag behind the scenes, but he's fantastic at putting out a basketball team that wins games.  People who expected MSU to just run away and hide with Izzo were probably a bit too optimistic.  

Yes, Beilein didn't carry the team out of the dark ages, but there was no way Amaker was going to take UM and make them a conference or national title contender.  He just wasn't.  So maybe UM trudges along with Amaker a couple more years, gets a couple 8 seeds and leave in the first round of the tourney or compete in the NIT.  Basically, his ceiling was always Beilein's relative floor, so Beilein was a major upgrade in that department just because he was innovative on one end of the court.

And I'm not sure how "relevant" UM was under Ellerbe or Amaker.  I think people underestimate just how irrelevant this program was in the B1G; before Beilein, Amaker was better than .500 in the conference exactly once, and it was mostly because they played one of the easiest conference schedules that year.  It was a whole lot of 8-8 seasons mixed with 4-12/5-11 campaigns.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171843

MC5-95

March 1st, 2016 at 7:48 PM ^

I grew up in the Frieder era and went to UM during the Fab Five years. In terms of accomplishment, JB is the best coach since Fisher (obviously) and on par with Frieder. My opinion has been we should keep JB unless he has 3 unsuccessful seasons in a row. He's had one so far. Jury is still out on this year. Get in NCAA and it's successful; or get to the NIT championship and it's successful (albeit in a lesser way). That's far from my threshold of UM basketball pain.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 02/26/2014

MGoPoints: 4985

Boner Stabone

March 1st, 2016 at 5:47 PM ^

Well, Mark Hollis is the chairperson for the selection committee, so maybe he knows something we dont.  I am not planning on getting in because of the Hollis effect.

Joined: 01/06/2015

MGoPoints: 24117

Human Torpedo

March 1st, 2016 at 6:14 PM ^

If he's that vindicative towards us that he would be the reason we're left out, I would hold him in worse contempt than Dantonio. If he wants to see his beloved Spartans not get toasted by Carr and the committee and be able to see Michigan State football in the playoffs again, he better not meddle in this fight

Joined: 01/15/2016

MGoPoints: 2195

Franz Schubert

March 1st, 2016 at 6:08 PM ^

Is on the commitee but does not take the chair until 2017. I would love to see how desperately Hollis fights to insure MSU is not in a region with UNC or Duke. Izzo is 0-8 vs Roy Williams. 1-8 against Coach K. That's 1-16 overall and most were blowouts. Of course you won't hear the fawning media mention this as it's pretty embarrassing to Izzo.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

Wolvie3758

March 1st, 2016 at 6:13 PM ^

and first BTT and were in..Lunardis been wrong before....alot....everyone thinks hes so accurate yeah sure the day BEFORE its alot easier to predict than right now..He changes his mind every 5 minutes...I stopped worrying what he thinks...

Joined: 12/12/2010

MGoPoints: 6338

wayneandgarth

March 1st, 2016 at 8:06 PM ^

I usually would trust Lunardi but in this case BS. Before the last game it was win one of the last two and they are in. Absolutely nothing has changed. Beat Iowa and they are in.

Joined: 10/10/2012

MGoPoints: 12961

BlueMk1690

March 1st, 2016 at 9:52 PM ^

team looks like a NIT team to me.

I also find myself not being especially annoyed by that. The reason we're okay with Beilein and this type of record is that we're not a basketball school and if we're good in football we can live with being slightly above average in basketball. The need for a good basketball program is kinda inversely related to the hype around the football program. Right now we have Harbaugh and the sky appears to be the limit so basketball isn't gonna be on people's minds really.

I am not denying there's a hardcore of Michigan hoops fans who passionately care but our fan base gravitates towards football and this probably translates to our boosters and administrators as well. Our two most recent ADs played football for Bo and Michigan football is - unlike any other sport - at the very core of the school's identity.

Joined: 02/04/2011

MGoPoints: 12933

bronxblue

March 1st, 2016 at 11:03 PM ^

It isn't looking great, but Lunardi isn't particularly good at forecasting these things, especially at the fringes.  Historically, he's been under whelming as a prognosticator of tournament bids.  That said, UM definitely needs to win 2 more games to feel safe going to the tourney.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171843

LostOnNorth

March 2nd, 2016 at 11:26 PM ^

We have the most alumni, and some very rich alumni. Just bring in the bagmen. It's not like paying college players is like selling crack to poor people or something actually morally reprehensible. It's illegal due to the arbitrary rules made by an unelected organization, everyone breaks those rules already because they're bullshit,  and the rules weren't created for any moral reason. In fact the rules themsevles are more immoral than anything. 

Until then, enjoy watching a team full of weird guys bumble around the court and maybe every 10 years we'll make a couple runs when the stars align. 

I don't understand why people are ok with being mediocre as long as they can also maintain a false sense of moral superiority over other schools. 

Joined: 10/12/2014

MGoPoints: 917